Criminal history

[08thunders]

Where in the 1st amendment does it say you can walk into a crowded theater and yell fire?

If the building is on fire, you don't need to take a class, pay $140 and wait two months before you yell fire.

[Grog]

Nothing personal, but if you were looking at someone's record and it looked like that, do you think they should be trusted to carry a concealed weapon?

Well, let's look at it another way... Exactly where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that anyone's right to bear arms should be infringed in any way?

Wake up and smell the toast burning. People's rights are being infringed every day, well beyond gun rights.


Remember, the OP is not asking because he got a speeding ticket for 4mph over, he did some serious stuff.

1996 Public intox
1996 disordely conduct
2004 DWI Class B mis
2008 Public intox
2008 simple assault class b mis



Personally, I think DWI convictions should be dealt with on a firing range, but I have no tolerance with drunks.

[Grog]

Heh, I just read the replies after the one I quoted. Any bets that CollinLeon is a second screen name for someone?

[CollinLeon]

Heh, I just read the replies after the one I quoted. Any bets that CollinLeon is a second screen name for someone?

Oh? Who? This is the first time and only time that I have registered for this site. On the other hand, I've probably used a hundred different IDs on the Houston Chronicle's site due to the fact that the leftists over there keep banning people with conservative viewpoints.

[Hoi Polloi]

I am wanting to apply but I am not sure if I will qualify. I thought someone here might be able to give me some insight. Below are my infractions will I be able?
1996 Public intox
1996 disordely conduct
2004 DWI Class B mis
2008 Public intox
2008 simple assault class b mis

I know it is not a sparkling record but is it too bad to qualify? Or do I have to wait a time period before I can apply?
HELP please

thanks in advance for any info

(8) has not, in the five years preceding the date of application, been
convicted of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or an offense under
Section 42.01, Penal Code;

An individual who has been convicted two times within
the10-year period preceding the date on which the person applies for
a license of an offense of the grade of Class B misdemeanor or greater
that involves the use of alcohol or a controlled substance as a statutory
element of the offense is a chemically dependent person for
purposes of this section and is not qualified to receive a license under
this subchapter.

IANAL and all that.
I'm assuming that the 2008 public intoxication was a Class C misdemeanor. It can be a Class B if you've had two before, but you only list one before and don't specify that it was B.

Your most recent Class B (2008 simple assault) does not "involve the use of alcohol or a controlled substance as a statutory element of the offense" even though you were presumably also charged with the Class C public intoxication at the same time. The public intoxication does "involve the use of alcohol or a controlled substance as a statutory element of the offense," but is only a Class C (presumably) and not a B or higher. Therefore, the 2008 offenses do not count toward being considered "chemically dependent." The 1996 cases are the same in that disorderly conduct does not "involve the use of alcohol or a controlled substance as a statutory element of the offense" and public intoxication was (presumably) a Class C. So in 1996 and in 2008, you were not charged with a Class B or A misdemeanor that involved the use of alcohol or a controlled substance as a statutory element of the offense.

That means your 2004 DWI is the only Class B or higher offense you've committed that "involved the use of alcohol or a controlled substance as a statutory element of the offense." If you get another Class B or higher that involves alcohol between now and 2014, you will be considered chemically dependent and will be ineligible without doctor exemption yada yada for a CHL (which you're highly unlikely to get). However, the statute does say, "This subsection does not preclude the disqualification of an individual for being a chemically dependent person if other evidence exists to show that the person is a chemically dependent person." You aren't out of the woodwork completely, but you aren't disqualified out of the gate.

If you get another alcohol related offense between now and then, no matter what class, you could be considered chemically dependent based on your legal track record and if they say you are "chemically dependent" then you will be excluded from ever getting a CHL. It's a lot less likely that they'd say you are chemically dependent if you have 5 years with no legal problems involving alcohol, but it isn't a guarantee. Keep your nose clean! If you get another Class A or B in the next 4 years that involves alcohol like another DWI, you'll be automatically considered chemically dependent and will definitely be excluded from getting a CHL.

Therefore, as long as things stay as they are (stop drinking and getting in trouble, dude!) then according to my reading of it, you have to wait 5 years from your most recent Class B (which was 2008) and you can't get another Class B or higher that involves alcohol in the statutory description within 10 years of the last one (which was 2004). That would mean 2013 is the soonest you can get a CHL.

[CollinLeon]

Wake up and smell the toast burning. People's rights are being infringed every day, well beyond gun rights.


Remember, the OP is not asking because he got a speeding ticket for 4mph over, he did some serious stuff.

1996 Public intox
1996 disordely conduct
2004 DWI Class B mis
2008 Public intox
2008 simple assault class b mis



Personally, I think DWI convictions should be dealt with on a firing range, but I have no tolerance with drunks.

Personally, I think that the neo-temperance movement fanatics (i.e. MADD) should have been dealt with on a firing range.

I'm not saying that someone should be driving a vehicle while really drunk. I'm saying that having the limit so low that 2 beers could make it illegal to drive is just a bit ridiculous. In fact, I suspect that the new open container laws in combination with the lower allowed limit of alcohol in your bloodstream while driving has in fact contributed to an increase in road rage incidents. Well, probably that plus the fact of the drivers consuming a bit too much caffeine... Back in my younger days, it was quite common for guys to grab a beer and sip on it while driving home from work. If someone wanted to cut-in, you let them in since you were stuck in traffic anyway and at least you could be drinking a beer in the process. Now days, everyone is wound so tight that they consider someone cutting in front of them to be a personal insult. It's like "how dare this person cut in front of me when I'm doing 15 mph!"... Back in the old days, you would just take another sip of your beer and not let it bother you.

With regards to the original poster's criminal record, I would be more concerned with what the circumstances were behind each of the incidents. The 2008 incidents could have been something as simple as partying in the French Quarter and then puking on a cop's shoes when the cop came up to ask him if he was alright. Of course, that would have irritated the cop off and caused him to combine a public intoxication charge with an assault charge.

I'm not saying that this is what happened for the original poster... I'm just saying that the circumstances could make a difference....

[newblood]

Well I have to say I did not intend to start a constitutional debate here nor have people speculate on the circumstances of my convictions. The way I see it it doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is what comes up when you run my history. For what its worth the only class b's are dwi and simple assault and none of the recent incidents happened at the same time.

I am allowed to own not only a handgun without any issues as well as NFA Class III weapons. It is legal for me to carry a concealed weapon in my vehicle.

What I am wanting to know is with my history, is their a time now or in the future that I will be able to obtain a CHL. Are they black and white on the rules? Or is there gray area?

I have enjoyed reading the replies, and I'm not a troll I am registered on alost all gun forums.

[baldeagle]

He's not a lawyer. He's a cop. By the way, you are interpreting the Constitution also. I'm just sayin'....

Perhaps, but my interpretation is better... I believe that the Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were saying and MEANT it when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Come on... They did not see fit to give women the right to vote... Can't get much more insightful than THAT, right? We have taken a beautiful document and have unfortunately corrupted it over the years...

Do you seriously believe that the founding fathers would have allowed convicted felons to carry weapons? Between 1776 and 1821, eleven states passed laws disenfranchising convicted felons. If the founding states thought it was appropriate to remove this most fundamental of rights of citizenship, there is no question that the states also have the power to make the possession of firearms by convicted felons unlawful.

The Fourteenth Amendment, in its first clause, reads, in part, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;". Clearly, any person can have their live, liberty or property taken away so long as due process of law is followed. Furthermore, the Fourteenth Amendment takes its wording directly from the Fifth Amendment (nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;), which was passed by our Founding Fathers and become a part of the Bill of Rights.

So, while you are certainly entitled to the opinion that the 2A prohibits preventing anyone from bearing arms, your opinion is not in accord with the words of the Constitution itself nor with the general understanding of the Constitution voiced by the Founding Fathers in the Federalist Papers.

[baldeagle]

Well I have to say I did not intend to start a constitutional debate here nor have people speculate on the circumstances of my convictions. The way I see it it doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is what comes up when you run my history. For what its worth the only class b's are dwi and simple assault and none of the recent incidents happened at the same time.

I am allowed to own not only a handgun without any issues as well as NFA Class III weapons. It is legal for me to carry a concealed weapon in my vehicle.

What I am wanting to know is with my history, is their a time now or in the future that I will be able to obtain a CHL. Are they black and white on the rules? Or is there gray area?

I have enjoyed reading the replies, and I'm not a troll I am registered on alost all gun forums.

As I pointed out to you earlier, the earliest you should apply is 2014. However, I would recommend that you call DPS's CHL division and ask them. Their opinion is a lot more important than mine.

[Hoi Polloi]

As I pointed out to you earlier, the earliest you should apply is 2014. However, I would recommend that you call DPS's CHL division and ask them. Their opinion is a lot more important than mine.

By my calculation, it is 2013 since that is 5 years from his most recent Class B in 2008.
He can't get another alcohol-related offense between now and 2014 as that would classify him as chemically dependent, but he doesn't have to wait for 2014 as long as he keeps his nose clean.

[jester]

What I am wanting to know is with my history, is their a time now or in the future that I will be able to obtain a CHL. Are they black and white on the rules?

The rules are the rules.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... tm#411.172 says, in part,

Sec. 411.172. ELIGIBILITY. (a) A person is eligible for a license to carry a concealed handgun if the person:

(8) has not, in the five years preceding the date of application, been convicted of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or equivalent offense or of an offense under Section 42.01, Penal Code, or equivalent offense;